Folk Theories about Sex and Race Differences

Martin, Carol Lynn; Parker, Sandra

doi:10.1177/0146167295211006

Cited by 172 publications

(160 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

147

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…More prejudiced persons may have a greater desire for clear distinctions between real social groups. Martin and Parker (1995) showed that students who were intolerant of ambiguity were more likely to believe that sex and race differences were due to biological factors rather than socialization factors. Blascovich, Wyer, Swart, and Kibler (1997) observed that racially prejudiced persons take longer to categorize racially ambiguous faces, and may also be more motivated to categorize them.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexual Orientation Beliefs

Hegarty

Pratto

2001

Journal of Homosexuality

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexual Orientation Beliefs

Hegarty

Pratto

2001

Journal of Homosexuality

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the years since these early articles, however, gender schema theorists and other cognitive researchers have elaborated how gender schemas develop and how their content may be learned (Liben & Bigler, in press). The development of gender schemas was extensively discussed in several review chapters (Martin, 1999;Martin & Halverson, 1987) and in the Handbook of Child Psychology (Ruble & Martin, 1998), as well as being the topic of a number of empirical studies (Bigler, Jones, & Lobliner, 1997;Fagot & Leinbach, 1989;Levy & Carter, 1989;Martin & Parker, 1995). Moreover, there is an extensive literature on the topic of schema development within social and developmental psychology.…”

Section: Discounting Cognition: Moving Against Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive theories of early gender development.

Martin¹,

Ruble

Szkrybalo

2002

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

535

514

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contribution of cognitive perspectives (cognitive-developmental theory and gender schema theory) to a contemporary understanding of gender development is evaluated. Recent critiques of cognitive approaches are discussed and empirical evidence is presented to counter these critiques. Because of the centrality of early gender development to the cognitive perspective, the latest research is reviewed on how infants and toddlers discriminate the sexes and learn the attributes correlated with sex. The essence of cognitive approaches-emphasis on motivational consequences of gender concepts; the active, self-initiated view of development; and focus on developmental patterns-is highlighted and contrasted with social-cognitive views. The value of cognitive theories to the field is illustrated, and recommendations are made concerning how to construct comprehensive, integrative perspectives of gender development.How individuals develop a "gendered" self and gender-typed differentiation has intrigued researchers of human behavior for as long as social development has been a field of empirical study. Initially, observations of clear gender typing in children as young as 5 years old led researchers to examine how socialization processes in the home might contribute to this early acquisition of gender-linked behavior (e.g., Sears, Maccoby, & Levin, 1957). In 1966, several important theories of gender development, including Kohlberg's cognitive-developmental approach and Mischel's social learning approach, were outlined in Maccoby's book on the development of sex differences. In the mid-1970s, a groundbreaking book by Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) broadened the discussion about the etiology of sex differences and gender typing and questioned the significance of socialization processes, thereby invigorating the field and generating considerable controversy. In the 1980s, Huston (1983Huston ( , 1985 called for researchers to develop a more integrative, comprehensive approach to the study of gender development. This integration was to include consideration of the many facets of gender that needed investigation, such as concepts, identity, preferences, and behavior, as well as a wide variety of factors that influence the development of these facets, including biology, cognitions, and social influences. This idea resonated with gender researchers and has been a driving force in the field ever since, leading to an expansion of theoretical approaches and the inclusion of multiple measures in empirical studies.Recently, Bussey and Bandura (1999) presented a socialcognitive theory (SCT) of gender development and differentiation. This theory represents a particular view of how gender-related behavior is acquired and maintained, based on contemporary social learning theory (Bandura, 1986). Because the theory has now integrated cognitive constructs and makes reference to biological underpinnings and sociostructural factors, Bussey and Bandura described their theory as comprehensive and integrative, consistent with Huston's (1983) proposal,...

show abstract

“…While belief in the biological determination of sexual orientation is correlated with tolerance towards lesbians and gay men, beliefs in biological determination are also correlated with prejudice and stereotyping of other minority groups (c.f., Bastian & Haslam, 2006;Keller, 2005;Martin & Parker, 1995;Prentice & Miller, 2007;Morton, Postmes, Haslam, & Hornsey, 2009;Williams & Eberhardt, 2008;Yzerbyt, Rocher, & Schadron, 1997). This pattern of results has lead researchers to wonder if sexual prejudice is a 'special case' in this literature (e.g., D. Bem, 1998;Haslam et al, 2002;Jayaratne et al, 2006).…”

Section: Essentialist Thinking and Prejudicementioning

confidence: 99%

A stone in the soup? Changes in sexual prejudice and essentialist beliefs among British students in a class on LGBT psychology

Hegarty

2010

Psychology & Sexuality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Published as Hegarty, P. (2010). A stone in the soup? Changes in sexual prejudice and essentialist beliefs among British students in a class on LGBT psychology. Psychology and Sexuality, 1, 3-20. AbstractBiological theories of sexual orientation, typically presented in human sexuality classes, are considered by many social psychologists to cause reductions in students' sexual prejudice. Yet when biological theories were not presented to 36 psychology students in a ten-week seminar on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) psychology, both sexual prejudice and two forms of essentialist thinking reduced significantly. Prejudice reduction was causally related to decreased essentialist belief in clear boundaries between sexual orientation categories but not to decreased belief in the immutability of sexual orientation categories. Students' characterized belief in the fluidity of sexual orientation categories as enlightened and empowering in their own words. This cross-lagged study confirms earlier cross-sectional studies showing that sexual prejudice is causally related to 'natural kind' beliefs about sexual orientation. It further shows that the typical practice of teaching human sexuality courses from a biological perspective is not the cause of prejudice reduction in this educational context.

show abstract

Folk Theories about Sex and Race Differences

Cited by 172 publications

References 37 publications

Sexual Orientation Beliefs

Sexual Orientation Beliefs

Cognitive theories of early gender development.

A stone in the soup? Changes in sexual prejudice and essentialist beliefs among British students in a class on LGBT psychology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About